At the risk of being attacked for my stupidity on this subject, can you explain in laymans terms what you mean by atheist fundamentalist behaviors and statements? Do you mean the “atheist way or the highway” attitude or something different? Or just a general lack of being respectful to others viewpoints? Or all of the above?

In other words, are you talking about uncompromising people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, or about wafflers like Dennis Campbell and Immodium Suppository?

Well, I was hoping for an explaination that was a little more general, as well as rational. Perhaps at the risk of being rude, you as well as others who seem post with a pompous chip on your shoulders, should up your medications, get laid, or both.

Is that trademarked for geriatric colon distress?
Diarrhea or constipation?
LOL

It’s trademarked all right, but not for anything that generic. The real Immodium is for diarhhea, but I don’t think it comes in a suppository.

“Immodium”. I love this word—another example of pharmaceutical industry cleverness when it comes to brand names, like “Viagra”.

They must think of vaguely relevant words like “immobile” (you want your bowels to stop moving), “commode” (want to get off it), “immodest” (yucky poo), “tedium” (boring to have diarrhea), and run them through software that combines them to come up with a new word.

Perfect for the late-night browser wandering the drug store aisles and clutching his tummy.

“I will tell you with the utmost impudence that I esteem much more his Person, than his Works.”

The Treason Project is a project to identify and confront fundamentalist behavior. Whether we like it or not, atheists can engage in the same types of unhealthy behavior which Christians do.

The Treason Project will accomplish this by having an evidentiary depository where fundamentalists statements can be imported and examined by all. Fundamentalists statements made by atheists fundamentalists and others can be imported to this thread to be examined by all. So far Dennis Campbell, Skeptic X, eucaryote, teuchter and I have been spending time on the thread examining fundamentalist statements, but others are welcome to join in. To look for examples of fundamentalists behavior, you can either simply search through current and older threads, or click on a particular persons profile and look at all their past writings. We want to look for examples of intolerance for others viewpoints, absolute scientific certainty in areas where none exists, or examples of dogmatic behavior.

I’m calling it the Treason Project because I do feel like a bit of a traitor, being critical of people whom I agree with on many issues such as religion, but it is important for any group of people to be honest with themselves. It is important that we not show signs of intolerance or dogmatic behavior like some religious groups do. And we certainly don’t want to impede scientific curiosity in areas where there is still a lot to learn. I’ll be critical of some of my friends in this forum, just to show there is no bias involved. Welcome to the Treason Project, and I look forward to your positive contributions.

At the risk of being attacked for my stupidity on this subject, can you explain in laymans terms what you mean by atheist fundamentalist behaviors and statements? Do you mean the “atheist way or the highway” attitude or something different? Or just a general lack of being respectful to others viewpoints? Or all of the above?

Cindy

Hi Cindy, and thanks for your interest. Here is how atheist fundamentalism is accurately described:

An atheist fundamentalist is someone who is absolutely convinced this all is simply a result of a natural process with no outside interference(which is a possibility), or who is 100% certain that everything about themselves will cease to exist when they die(also a possibility). Another atheist fundamentalist position is an absolute confidence that consciousness is simply a byproduct of human life, despite the lack of scientific evidence to confirm this. The term atheist fundamentalist is useful in differentiating between atheists who are open to some of these ideas, such as Sam Harris is, and those who are close-minded on these areas where scientific certainty has yet to emerge.

And as with religious fundamentalism, another trend of atheist fundamentalism is an intolerance for differing views. I am not referring to conversational intolerance, where personal convictions are weighed against evidence, and where intellectual honesty is demanded of all. That is healthy. What is unhealthy, and is also bad for the image of atheism is when it becomes belligerently offensive to the point where personal insults are directed towards those with differing opinions.

I use the word atheist fundamentalist to differentiate them from the significant portion of atheists who realize and admit that we still have a lot to learn about consciousness, or who are more open-minded about an afterlife, such as Sam Harris is in The End of Faith. It is also effective in differentiating between between atheists who practice conversational intolerance in a civil manner, and those who consistently do not.

Some atheist’s only hold fundamentalist views on one issue, just as some Christian fundamentalists only hold fundamentalist views on one or two issues.

Is atheist fundamentalism a bad thing? Probably not in comparison to religious fundamentalism. But atheist fundamentalists do have the potential to inhibit scientific progress because of their absolute certainty on some issues where science is clearly not certain, which is essentially scientific close-mindedness. Absolute certainty in areas where science is not absolutely certain inhibits scientific progress rather than encouraging it. And the atheist fundamentalists who engage in belligerently offensive rhetoric certainly give atheism a bad image, one that other atheists would like to improve.

I am not the first person to attach fundamentalism to atheism, though up until now it seems to only have been applied erroneously by opponents of religious critics, for the most part. Atheists fundamentalism isn’t defined as strictly following a doctrine, since atheism has no set doctrine. However, having absolute certainty in something is dogmatic in nature, so atheist fundamentalist are dogmatic in nature. Its definition is applied to atheists who express absolutely certainty about something without the support of scientific evidence, which is also a trait of fundamentalism, and to those who engage in conversational intolerance in a belligerent, uncivil manner.

Is that trademarked for geriatric colon distress?
Diarrhea or constipation?
LOL

It’s trademarked all right, but not for anything that generic. The real Immodium is for diarhhea, but I don’t think it comes in a suppository.

“Immodium”. I love this word—another example of pharmaceutical industry cleverness when it comes to brand names, like “Viagra”.

They must think of vaguely relevant words like “immobile” (you want your bowels to stop moving), “commode” (want to get off it), “immodest” (yucky poo), “tedium” (boring to have diarrhea), and run them through software that combines them to come up with a new word.

Perfect for the late-night browser wandering the drug store aisles and clutching his tummy.

If anyone here hasn’t figured out that IS is a lying, dishonest, manipulative fuckwit, then you haven’t been paying attention.

I have never lied in this forum. If I have, please point out where.

I also have never been dishonest. There was one time where I cut & pasted a definition of spinal biffida without sourcing it, someone made a big deal over it out of desperation, so I went back and cited it.

And I have never been manipulative, though I can understand why some might feel that way possibly out of embarrassment because they inadvertently helped out in some of my projects in this forum.

If anyone here hasn’t figured out that IS is a lying, dishonest, manipulative fuckwit, then you haven’t been paying attention.

I have never lied in this forum. If I have, please point out where.

I also have never been dishonest. There was one time where I cut & pasted a definition of spinal biffida without sourcing it, someone made a big deal over it out of desperation, so I went back and cited it.

And I have never been manipulative, though I can understand why some might feel that way possibly out of embarrassment because they inadvertently helped out in some of my projects in this forum.

For posterity:

Your lying and being dishonest and manipulative right now.

I caught you changing quotes. I caught you making false statements about other posters participating in your projects and agreeing with your statements. and I caught you
cross posting quotes out of context between your threads to make it appear that people supported your views.

It’s back in the threads if you haven’t doctored it and if anyone cares enough to look, I don’t.

Why is there Something instead of Nothing: No reason or ever knowable reason.

FTR, I am NOT a part of any “Treason Project!” That was an induction without consent or agreement. IS, next time, before implying that anyone is a part of anything, it’d be useful to get their agreement ahead of time. Posting on a thread does not by that fact endorse that thread.

Dennis

I never implied that you were a part of the Treason Project, I simply said that you and others had been examining atheist fundamentalists statements on this thread, which is the truth. And I also never claimed any of you endorsed the thread.

You’ve gone and hung the poor man with a handle he’ll have a hard time avoiding. Beautifully put, I must say; I’m envious.

Dennis

Dennis, you should know by now that personal insults don’t affect me, though I would prefer people to be civil and actually make posts which actually address the topic at hand. Usually, once you get past the insults, there isn’t much substance in many posts where people resort to this undignified, desperate behavior.

If anyone here hasn’t figured out that IS is a lying, dishonest, manipulative fuckwit, then you haven’t been paying attention.

I have never lied in this forum. If I have, please point out where.

Immediate Suppression - 29 November 2008 06:52 PM

I would tend to agree with you that once we die, we are likely a pile of rotting meat, based upon the evidence I’ve studied. But I wouldn’t express certainty in it.

In fact, this is not your opinion. You have made lots of statements suggesting other possibilities in such a way as to imply that you do not, in fact, think it is likely that when we die we end up as a pile of rotting meat.

In fact, the way we deal with the problem of “certainty” about such matters is (for scientists) to say that we are certain that we end up as piles of rotting meat, unless evidence arrives that suggests something else is the case. The way we express that certainty is not to give money to morons like you who want to research the notion that the chill you get up your spine is evidence of something having to do with not becoming a pile of rotting meat after you are dead.

Now, you personally may not be comfortable with the idea of being a pile of rotting meat after you are dead, and you may tell yourself all sorts of stories to try to make the discomfort less. In fact, your discomfort about this goes hand in hand with your discomfort about being called a moron for proclaiming your ideas, and with being accused of being a lying manipulative bastard for complaining about rudeness instead of admitting the degree of dissonance you feel about your crazy afterlife ideas.